COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE HEARING
STATE CAPITOL HARRISBURG, PA
418 MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING MINORITY CAUCUS ROOM
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018 10:01 A.M.
PRESENTATION ON HOUSE BILL 2122
BEFORE:
HONORABLE MARK K. KELLER, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN HONORABLE ALEXANDER TESLA CHARLTON HONORABLE MICHAEL N. CORR HONORABLE MATT DOWLING HONORABLE HARRY LEWIS, JR. HONORABLE TOM MURT HONORABLE JASON ORTITAY HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER B. QUINN HONORABLE GREG ROTHMAN
HONORABLE CAROLYN COMITTA HONORABLE EMILIO VAZQUEZ 2
1 COMMITTEE STAFF PRESENT:
2 CHRISTINE GOLDBECK, MAJORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ASHLEY SHEAFFER, MAJORITY RESEARCH ANALYST 3 KORI WEIKLE, MAJORITY LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 4 JON CASTELLI, MINORITY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 5 JOHN McDERMOTT, MINORITY LEGLISLATIVE ASSISTANT
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 * * * * * Pennsylvania House of Representatives 25 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3
1 I N D E X
2 TESTIFIERS
3 * * *
4 NAME PAGE
5 MARK NORDENBERG FORMER CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITY OF 6 PITTSBURGH...... 9
7 DAN ONORATO FORMER ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 12 8 JIM RODDEY 9 FORMER ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 15
10 RICH FITZGERALD ALLEGHENY COUNTY EXECUTIVE...... 17 11 WILLIAM McKAIN 12 ALLEGHENY COUNTY MANAGER...... 22
13 KRIS GAZSI ASSOCIATE COUNSEL OF LGC...... 23 14 RICK VILELLO 15 DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS...... 29
16 AMY STURGES DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, PENNSYLVANIA 17 MUNICIPAL LEAGUE...... 37
18 MELISSA MORGAN LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY ANALYST, PENNSYLVANIA 19 STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS....44
20
21 SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY * * * 22 (See submitted written testimony and handouts online.)
23
24 * * * * * * Summer A. Miller, Court Reporter 25 [email protected] 4
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 * * *
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: It's 10:01 and I'm
4 kind of a stickler for starting on time, so at ten o'clock
5 we're to get started.
6 First of all, I want to point out that this
7 is being recorded, so if you'd put your cell phones on mute,
8 we'd appreciate it.
9 Also, we're here today to hear testimony on
10 House Bill 2122, allowing the dissolution of
11 municipalities in Allegheny County. The goal of this
12 legislation is to encourage local cooperation so that
13 residents receive necessary services. The first of its
14 kind, this bill allows a non-distressed municipality to
15 dissolve in favor of receiving services from the county
16 and to still retain their individual identity. So
17 today, our testifiers will provide details on the
18 concept and we will hear about its potential pros and
19 pitfalls.
20 Before we get started, I'd like to thank the
21 professionals who traveled here today to help us learn
22 about the concepts, so that we can make informed
23 decisions when it's time to vote. And I want to thank
24 everyone for attending.
25 And before we get started, if we could, start 5
1 over on my far right and introduce yourself and your
2 district.
3 REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: State Representative
4 Chris Quinn, Delaware County.
5 REPRESENTATIVE ORTITAY: Representative Jason
6 Ortitay, Allegheny and Washington County.
7 REPRESENTATIVE DOWLING: Representative
8 Matthew Dowling representing Fayette and Somerset Counties
9 in the 51st District.
10 REPRESENTATIVE CHARLTON: Representative Alex
11 Charlton, 165th District.
12 REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Representative Harry
13 Lewis from Chester County, 74th District.
14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: And of course, I'm
15 Representative Mark Keller, Chairman of the Urban Affairs
16 Committee.
17 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Carolyn Committa,
18 and I represent West Chester in Chester County.
19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right. Thank
20 you.
21 Okay, we're going to start out with
22 Representative Dom Costa and Representative Hal English. If
23 you'll come forward, make a few remarks about your bill, we
24 would certainly appreciate it.
25 The floor is yours. 6
1 REPRESENTATIVE COSTA: Thank you, Mr.
2 Chairman.
3 And again, I want to thank you and the
4 committee for allowing us to be here and to basically vent
5 out some of the issues that may be, or not be, and give you
6 the ability to have a more informed decision about where
7 we're going to go.
8 I believe this bill is an excellent bill.
9 You'll hear the word "voluntary, voluntary, voluntary."
10 It's so important that we have two former county executives
11 and our current county executive here.
12 As a lifetime resident of Allegheny County, I
13 see the turmoil that small municipalities are in, that
14 can't, you know, join up with other communities. Because
15 what happens is, you have a small community, they want to
16 join up with another community. One community may be a
17 little bit wealthier or whatever, and they decide, "No, you
18 can't come in. We don't want you." And they're out there
19 stringing along.
20 And over the last two years, we've worked on
21 this bill diligently. Pitt has done a lot of research on
22 it, and Representative English and I, both of Allegheny
23 County -- this has bipartisan support of our whole Allegheny
24 County delegation, both Republican and Democrat, and the
25 senators are on board, too. 7
1 So I, number one, I want to thank you very
2 much for your consideration in allowing us to have this. It
3 means the world to me, and hopefully, you get enough
4 information that we can move it forward for a vote and get
5 it to the House floor.
6 Thank you, sir.
7 REPRESENTATIVE ENGLISH: Thank you, Mr.
8 Chairman, and members of the committee.
9 Yes, you will hear "voluntary" and you'll
10 also hear "bipartisan." This is something that has been
11 researched and explored by Allegheny County, the elected
12 officials. Their past and current all approve of this
13 measure.
14 Just to give you a little framework of some
15 of the testifiers, Allegheny County within the last, not
16 quite 20 years, has had, under home rule charter, has had
17 three executive directors, the first being Republican Jim
18 Roddey, who's here today, and the second being Democrat Dan
19 Onorato, and our current Democrat, Rich Fitzgerald. Each of
20 these have talent, experience, and produce results. And
21 they continue to help our community and our area of
22 southwestern Pennsylvania to move and advance good
23 government concepts forward.
24 So by sports analogy, what you have is
25 probably Crosby, Roethlisberger, and Cutch here today to 8
1 give information on the experience and the breath of this.
2 We'll let them arm wrestle it out to say who's who.
3 And then to tie that all together, we also
4 have Mark Nordenburg who is the former chancellor of the
5 University of Pittsburgh, but before that, he was a
6 professor for eight years and then the dean of the law
7 school for eight years, and then for his interim role and
8 then in the role of chancellor for 20 years. And then after
9 all of that, he moved on to the Pittsburgh Institute of
10 Politics, which has been in existence for 25 years. It
11 brings together local officials, elected officials, and key
12 significant government leaders to openly discuss issues, you
13 know, without retribution, to have policy dialogue, and they
14 have rolled up their sleeves and have analyzed this. And
15 you'll hear that report from Chancellor Nordenburg, as well.
16 To keep the parody going, I guess that would
17 be kind of a bit of Dick Enberg and Bob Costas for a
18 play-by-play in color with that depth of understanding and
19 expertise.
20 So thank you for your time in hearing this,
21 and Representative Costa and I look forward to continuing to
22 work together and make this a good product and move it
23 forward with your help.
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you very
25 much. We appreciate that. 9
1 I noticed that we have been joined by
2 Representative Corr and Representative Rothman. Welcome.
3 Our first testifier is Pitt Institute of
4 Politics' Mark Nordenberg, former chancellor of the
5 University of Pittsburgh. If you'd come forward, please.
6 And the floor is yours.
7 MR. NORDENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
8 good morning, everyone. It is a privilege to be here with
9 you all today.
10 As Representative English indicated, I served
11 as chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh for nearly two
12 decades, and during that period of time, I made frequent
13 visits to the Capitol advocating for the cause of higher
14 education and for the University of Pittsburgh, more
15 specifically. I no longer shoulder that burden. People
16 have said I suddenly look taller. And I'm here in a
17 different role today, and that is as chair of the
18 university's Institute of Politics.
19 The institute was founded in direct response
20 to a request from civic leaders who believed that it would
21 provide a vehicle for the university to more effectively
22 advance its public service mission. It has been in
23 existence for more than 25 years, and on a regular basis
24 provides a neutral nonpartisan forum for the consideration
25 of issues that are of importance to southwestern 10
1 Pennsylvania.
2 We place a particular priority on being
3 responsive to requests from elected officials, knowing that
4 they often do not have the resources to engage in the kind
5 of research and analysis that can be provided to them by the
6 institute. We also do have, as your colleagues indicated, a
7 long record of providing the opportunity for informal,
8 off-the-record, candid discussions of issues that might
9 otherwise be the source of disagreement.
10 The most relevant item of context for the
11 bill that comes before you today is that there are 130
12 different municipalities in Allegheny County. Some are
13 large, some are small. Some are well-funded, some really
14 are dealing with the never-ending challenges of a resource
15 base that has been dramatically eroded over time.
16 About two years ago, the institute was
17 approached by County Executive Fitzgerald and asked if we
18 might undertake a study of alternatives that could be
19 attractive to distressed municipalities other than the
20 current Act 47 procedures, where a certain threshold has got
21 to be met before you go into Act 47 status and where
22 essentially you become a ward of the state for at least a
23 period of time.
24 We responded positively, and as a first step,
25 did recruit Mr. Onorato and Mr. Roddey as cochairs, a 11
1 Democrat and a Republican, and the only two people to have
2 served as county executives in Allegheny County other than
3 Mr. Fitzgerald, the incumbent.
4 Working with the two of them, we assembled a
5 15 member committee, which worked for the better part of a
6 year. That group included sitting municipal executives and
7 finance leaders. It included people from the Department of
8 Community and Economic Development, a group that is
9 represented here today. It included former senators, Mike
10 Fisher and Matt Smith, both from Allegheny County, both
11 familiar with the issues of municipalities within the
12 county, and again, a Republican and a Democrat.
13 In the end, we created a report, copies of
14 which I believe have been provided to you, and we presented
15 that report to County Executive Fitzgerald. Almost
16 simultaneously, we presented copies of the report to the
17 public.
18 The four of us, the all-star athletic
19 lineup -- I kept hoping that maybe Hal English was going to
20 put me in that company rather than as a broadcaster. But we
21 have been up in Harrisburg collectively and individually
22 trying to respond to questions. Thus far, the response has
23 been uniformly positive among Republicans and Democrats,
24 members of the Senate and members of House within the
25 Allegheny County delegation. So we do think we have 12
1 something positive to offer.
2 And again, thank you for giving us the
3 opportunity to be with you today and to present testimony.
4 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you. I
5 think we're going to hold questions until the end, if that's
6 all right with everyone.
7 I want to point out, we've been joined by
8 Representative Vazquez and also Representative Murt. So
9 thank you for joining us.
10 MR. NORDENBERG: Would you like me to stay as
11 the others come up?
12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Yes, if you will.
13 MR. NORDENBERG: Just off to the side.
14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Right. If you'd
15 do that, please, we'd appreciate it.
16 Next on the agenda is the Allegheny County
17 officials. We have Dan Onorato and Jim Roddey and Rich
18 Fitzgerald, past and present, all, please.
19 And the floor is yours, whoever wants to
20 start first.
21 MR. ONORATO: Well, Jim, I flipped a coin and
22 I'm going to start the joint testimony between the two of us
23 and then we'll turn it over to County Executive Fitzgerald.
24 First of all, I want to thank you, Mr.
25 Chairman, and all of the members of the committee, for 13
1 giving us this time today to talk about this important
2 issue. I want to thank current County Executive Rich
3 Fitzgerald for pulling this together with the committee and
4 being willing to address a very difficult issue, but an
5 important issue that must be addressed and will benefit the
6 residents of Allegheny County.
7 And just to say thanks to Mark Nordenberg and
8 the entire team at the Institute of Politics. Their
9 expertise and their staffing of the committee was
10 unbelievably helpful and they did a lot of work, and I want
11 to thank all of them.
12 And finally, all of the members of the
13 committee, that you heard from Mark, that are willing to
14 meet on a regular basis with us and all of the time they put
15 in.
16 So on behalf of Jim Roddey and myself, it is
17 our pleasure to appear before you to provide testimony on
18 House Bill 2122. The legislation jointly sponsored by
19 Representative Dom Costa and Representative Hal English,
20 along with members of the Allegheny County delegation,
21 amends the Second Class County Code to authorize the
22 voluntary dissolution of a municipality, create
23 unincorporated districts, and authorize the county to assume
24 responsibility for the governance and delivery of public
25 services in that unincorporated district. 14
1 As the Institute of Politics Chair Mark
2 Nordenberg has indicated, I filed a report on the issue of
3 voluntary municipal disincorporation which was issued in May
4 of 2017. Each of you has been provided a copy. The result
5 of our work was a clear and concise roadmap for municipal
6 disincorporation. The proposal defines not only the
7 criteria for determining when disincorporation is an
8 appropriate strategy, but also the steps for implementation.
9 It was the consensus of that committee that
10 it was prudent to expand eligibility for disincorporation to
11 allow more communities access to this valuable mechanism.
12 Given the merit challenges facing Allegheny County
13 municipalities, an option beyond that allowed for
14 municipalities in Act 47 is appropriate.
15 Municipal governments have a profound effect
16 on the quality of our daily lives, more so than any other
17 level of government. Through the delivery of essential
18 services, municipal governments give us unique sense of
19 place and community. Municipal governments shape the
20 character of our neighborhoods. They provide gathering
21 places and parks and libraries, and they deliver the public
22 services that ensure our families' safety and health. It's
23 why we call the municipalities in which we live "home."
24 And at this point, I'm going to turn it over
25 to Jim Roddey to go over some of the important highlights of 15
1 the bill, and would be more than happy to answer questions
2 at the end of all of the testimony.
3 Jim?
4 MR. RODDEY: Thank you, Dan, and thank you,
5 Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
6 Since we're using sports monikers, I'd like
7 to be Lou Gehrig, I think, given my age. I think that's
8 appropriate.
9 You've heard a lot about this being
10 voluntary, and it certainly is voluntary. This cannot begin
11 until a municipality, a majority of a municipality's council
12 or borough -- however they are organized -- they must pass a
13 referendum -- they must pass an ordinance to have a
14 referendum. And then the people of the community get to
15 vote on that referendum and it has to pass with a majority
16 of that vote. The process is always open and transparent.
17 And all the way through the process, the community, the
18 council itself, will appoint members to be part of the
19 planning process.
20 One of the big issues is that this will not
21 affect the school districts, it will not affect volunteer
22 firefighters, or EMS companies. It is strictly the
23 municipality only.
24 The debt of the organization, of the
25 municipality, will not be assumed by the county so that 16
1 county residents don't have to worry about bringing in a
2 distressed community, but the fact is that they will keep
3 that debt and there's a mechanism within the plan. So it is
4 strictly that you're coming in for services only.
5 We actually have a community right now that's
6 in, working under this umbrella, Wilmerding. It's a small
7 community in Allegheny County, one of the 130
8 municipalities. And they did not -- they were using
9 services of adjacent municipalities and weren't satisfied
10 with that. And they talked to the county and the county is
11 now working with them in an arrangement of intergovernmental
12 cooperation.
13 This in no way affects their ability to merge
14 with another community, even before or after this process
15 begins. Even after they have done all the process and they
16 have become a part of the county, they still have the
17 opportunity to work with an adjacent municipality, either
18 through merger or shared services.
19 We think that this is a good solution for --
20 and we don't know the exact number, but when you have 130
21 municipalities, I would say that there's probably 20 percent
22 of them that could be looked at for this service. And so I
23 think that it will be a very, very useful tool for the
24 county.
25 I also want to thank the Institute of 17
1 Politics' Mark Nordenberg for his leadership. They've done
2 a tremendous job. We had a great committee and thank Dan
3 and Rich Fitzgerald for their leadership, and Mark
4 Nordenberg for his leadership of that organization.
5 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
6 all of the members of the committee.
7 As the current county executive, I'm really
8 delighted to be joined by both of my predecessors -- Jim
9 Roddey, who's the first county executive, as Hal English and
10 Dom Costa indicated. It's still a fairly new form of
11 government, not even two decades old yet. And both of the
12 predecessors talked about the fact that there's 130
13 municipalities in Allegheny County, some of which are doing
14 extremely well, but some of which are really struggling to
15 pay the bills, to provide the essential services that other
16 communities can have. And right now, they really have no
17 mechanism to get out or change that framework.
18 There is Act 47, as was indicated. And
19 legislation that was passed a number of years ago that if a
20 community doesn't come out of Act 47, the ONS -- after so
21 many years, ONS has become essential wards of the state. So
22 state government will be providing their police services,
23 their public works services, sanitation, et cetera, et
24 cetera.
25 Right now there's no other mechanism, other 18
1 than the fact that they could merge, they could consolidate
2 with another municipality. And they've always been able to
3 do that for decades. But that doesn't occur. It hasn't
4 occurred in Allegheny County because, in essence, the haves
5 typically don't necessarily want to take on the have-nots,
6 and some of the things that go on with that.
7 But we think if there is a voluntary
8 mechanism -- and what we're really calling this is just
9 another tool in the toolbox, to allow municipalities to have
10 an option. They can still stay where they are, they can try
11 to merge with another community, or they can go the route of
12 the state legislation which allows Act 47 communities to
13 eventually become part of the state as they disincorporate.
14 But this gives them an option that if their
15 borough council or their supervisors decide to put a
16 question on the ballot, that they would then be allowed, by
17 referendum, to have the people decide if they want to be
18 part of the county. As County Executive Roddey indicated,
19 we've seen some of those services start to be shared in some
20 small way, but it doesn't take them to, really, another
21 level.
22 I've also been very pleased that this has
23 really been a bipartisan working effort. Chancellor
24 Nordenberg, Director Nordenberg, at the Institute of
25 Politics at the University of Pittsburgh convened an 19
1 organization that has been around for a couple of decades,
2 and really rolls up their sleeves to look at best solutions
3 and solve problems. And the fact that you've got, you know,
4 Representative English and Representative Costa from
5 different parties, different parts of the county, coming
6 together to work together -- and we see the same level of
7 cooperation in the Senate, as well, which we're very, very
8 pleased with.
9 I also have with me -- I wanted to
10 acknowledge them, who did a lot of work. This is my chief
11 of staff, Jennifer Liptak; the county manager, Willy McKain;
12 our special events, special coordinator on -- Special
13 Projects Coordinator Darla Cravotta; and Amie Downs, our
14 communication director. They have worked on this. And
15 particularly Darla, who spends a lot of time on special
16 projects working with our municipal partners around many of
17 the issues, around transportation and infrastructure, that
18 we deal with.
19 So we really appreciate your willingness to
20 give us time to talk about this. We think this is a really
21 important initiative that our county can help some
22 communities that really need some support on their essential
23 services. And I appreciate your willingness to hear our
24 testimony.
25 Thank you. 20
1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you all very
2 much.
3 Are there questions from any of the members
4 on any of this?
5 (No response.)
6 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I have one quick
7 one.
8 First of all, pretty much a statement stating
9 that, you know, it sounds to me like it's a very
10 well-thought-out idea. You're allowing the people to make
11 the decision as to what they want to do.
12 My question to you, and I probably know the
13 answer to this, but what has contributed to the
14 municipalities being in this situation? Can you, any of
15 you, allude to the fact of what has created the problem?
16 MR. RODDEY: Essentially, it's a loss of jobs
17 and a loss of tax base. That's at the root of all of these
18 causes.
19 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. It's jobs
20 of steel mills, you know, iron --
21 MR. RODDEY: Steel mills. From 1978 to 1983,
22 we lost about 150,000 direct jobs. And if you add in the
23 indirect jobs, it was closer to a quarter of a million.
24 MR. ONORATO: And the population shift within
25 the county over the last 50 years has really changed the 21
1 pressure on some of these municipalities.
2 MR. FITZGERALD: You have exactly -- former
3 factory towns, in essence, where the factory has closed in
4 which you might have had a town that had 10,000 people three
5 or four decades ago and are now down to 1500 or 2,000
6 people. They still have the same infrastructure, geographic
7 area to take care of, a lot of blighted properties, but they
8 don't have the tax base to be able to pay for those. The
9 property values aren't what they were. So it's really been
10 a deindustrialization of certain parts of Allegheny County
11 that probably have led to a lot of this problem.
12 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay. Thank you
13 very much. I kind of thought that might be the --
14 My executive director has a question, so look
15 out.
16 MS. GOLDBECK: Makes me sound so fierce, and
17 you all know I'm not, right?
18 What happens to labor contracts if there are
19 paid police or fire? And I'm not sure that there are, but
20 I'm sure there's some paid police officers. What happens in
21 this process?
22 MR. FITZGERALD: Our interest in doing
23 that -- and if I might, I might bring the county manager to
24 answer that. But we've done some of this in our 911
25 operation, in which other 911 operations used to be 22
1 independent, that they would be run by the municipality.
2 And we have a countywide 911 operation in which
3 municipalities can join in.
4 We have kept every employee. Nobody has lost
5 their job through that process if they've joined in.
6 Our intent is to bring on the employees,
7 whether they work in public works, whether they work in
8 public safety, to bring them on as part of our operation
9 because they're going to know it better than anybody else.
10 So that would be the intent. And as far as if there's any
11 collective bargaining agreements -- Willy?
12 County Manager McKain can go through some of
13 those details.
14 MR. McKAIN: Sure. Thank you.
15 As was said previously, we will honor all of
16 the collective bargaining agreements that are in existence.
17 We obviously have a lot that we honor with our employees.
18 We look for efficiencies -- like for example, you mentioned
19 police departments. We have a county police that serves the
20 entire county. But we will honor all of those collective
21 bargaining agreements, look for efficiencies in the spirit
22 of blending them in with our resources and our processes to
23 deliver enhanced services.
24 MR. ONORATO: And if I could just add to
25 that, there is a significant number of municipalities, or a 23
1 large minority of municipalities that are in such financial
2 disarray that they have part-time police departments that
3 don't even have collective bargaining, making nine, ten
4 bucks an hour, that -- and it's not an appropriate way to
5 police these areas.
6 So some of these distressed municipalities,
7 these issues won't even be on the table.
8 MR. FITZGERALD: But I guess nobody is going
9 to lose their job, and we've committed to that. We will
10 hire those public works employees. They'll become part of
11 the county's Public Works Department.
12 MS. GOLDBECK: Thank you.
13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right.
14 Gentlemen, thank you very much for taking time for an
15 important piece of legislation and we appreciate you being
16 here.
17 All right, moving along, the Local Government
18 Commission, Kris Gazsi, associate counsel of LGC.
19 The floor is yours, Kris.
20 MR. GAZSI: Thank you.
21 Good morning. My name is Kris Gazsi and I
22 serve the Local Government Commission as an associate legal
23 counsel. We've been asked this morning to share our
24 analysis of House Bill 2122, which you find before you this
25 morning for your consideration. 24
1 The commission consists of members from all
2 four caucuses in the legislature and as a practice
3 consistent with its overall goal to advance the
4 effectiveness and efficiency of local government in
5 Pennsylvania, makes the resources of its professional staff
6 available for consultation to any member on issues related
7 to local government. However, our comments and analyses do
8 not amount to an endorsement of the policies proposed here
9 or in any other bill apart from legislation sponsored
10 directly by the Local Government Commission.
11 Accordingly, my testimony today seeks only to
12 place the bill at hand in the context of Pennsylvania
13 municipal governance and the constitutional provisions which
14 relate to the establishment of unincorporated districts
15 governed by a county of the second class.
16 House Bill 2122 proposes an optional
17 alternative form of local governance for the citizens of
18 Allegheny County by substituting county administration of
19 local services previously administered by the now dissolved
20 municipal corporation. This would constitute a modern
21 novelty in the Commonwealth.
22 Today the territory of the entire state is
23 divided among and completely contained within 2560 municipal
24 corporations and 67 counties. With the exception of
25 Philadelphia, where the city and the county are coterminous 25
1 and integrated, each resident of the Commonwealth is a
2 resident of a county and a separately elected city, borough,
3 incorporated town, or township.
4 Not all states in our region have established
5 the same universal practice of a two independent layer form
6 of local government; and further, the constitution of our
7 Commonwealth does not appear to limit the general assembly
8 to provide for local government by way of the status quo
9 either.
10 Article 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,
11 among other things, directs the general assembly to provide
12 for local government with specific direction to facilitate
13 alternative plans of governance, home rule, delegation, or
14 cooperation between units of local government, and the
15 formation of area government providing for the establishment
16 and dissolution of government of areas involving two or more
17 municipalities or parts.
18 Further, the framers of the 1968 Constitution
19 explicitly reserve, as the rights of the governed, the power
20 of local electors to insist by initiative on the
21 consolidation or merger of municipal corporations or the
22 delegation or transfer of any function, power, or
23 responsibility to one or more other municipalities or
24 districts -- pardon me -- or any newly created governmental
25 unit. 26
1 House Bill 2122 would allow the residents of
2 a municipal corporation in Allegheny County, which as a home
3 rule county has the power to perform any function not denied
4 by the Constitution of Pennsylvania by statute or by its
5 home rule charter, to pass the responsibility for municipal
6 governance to the county where the residents have given
7 their assent, and the governing bodies, the municipal
8 corporation, and Allegheny County have planned for an
9 orderly transition away from the existing form of
10 government.
11 Without careful planning, delegating an
12 existing municipal corporation's functions to the county
13 would raise many questions regarding the effect and
14 enforceability of the existing ordinances, taxing
15 liabilities, existing financial obligations, provision of
16 public safety, and maintenance of public property. In a
17 prior enactment, the general assembly sought to resolve
18 these questions by establishing a process by which an
19 existing, fiscally distressed municipal corporation could
20 work with a state appointed administrator to transfer its
21 functions into a trust-like relationship with the
22 Commonwealth, should no other options for its financial
23 viability exist.
24 By contrast, the process under House Bill
25 2122 would not impose responsibility on the Commonwealth, 27
1 but instead rely on an agreement between the governing
2 bodies formed prior to the municipal dissolution. With the
3 provisions of that agreement presented to the public for
4 inspection and hearing, the electors would have the final
5 say by referendum of the agreement. Should the referendum
6 succeed, the resulting unincorporated district would no
7 longer function independently as a general purpose unit of
8 local government under the laws of the Commonwealth. The
9 county would inherit the corporate powers of the former
10 municipal corporation, including the power to levy and
11 collect the taxes and fees which would have been a power of
12 the former governing body.
13 Moving forward, the affairs of the county and
14 the affairs of the district would be consolidated and
15 addressed as any other legislative or administrative act in
16 Allegheny County. However, when the county proposes to
17 amend its ordinances that relate specifically to the
18 district, the county council will participate in a local
19 comment meeting with representatives of the district and
20 hear public comment on the proposal prior to taking
21 legislative action.
22 Of course, there are many other
23 considerations which would go into the local decision-making
24 facilitated by House Bill 2122 and policy questions as to
25 whether this measure should proceed. 28
1 As I stated at the outset, the commission
2 does not have a position on the bill and I defer to its
3 sponsors and advocates on how the measure is intended to be
4 applied more specifically and serve the residents of
5 Allegheny County.
6 Thank you.
7 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you very
8 much for your testimony.
9 Are there any questions from members?
10 (No response.)
11 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Seeing none, my
12 executive director would like to ask you a question.
13 MS. GOLDBECK: With reference to your
14 testimony, Kris, when you were talking about the other
15 methodology where the Commonwealth assumes control, you're
16 talking about what we did with Act 47?
17 MR. GAZSI: Correct. The Chapter 4 process
18 under Act 47.
19 MS. GOLDBECK: And we don't have anyone who
20 has yet taken, has used that process, correct?
21 MR. GAZSI: No. That process was made
22 voluntary in the, moving forward with what is now Act 199
23 revisions to Act 47. There have been discussions as to
24 whether there could be a candidate at the time when those
25 provisions were put in place in 2013, but to my knowledge, 29
1 there's been no formal move towards that process.
2 But like I said, that process does look
3 somewhat different in that the community would essentially
4 fall in a trust-like relationship under the Commonwealth.
5 MS. GOLDBECK: Right. And this current
6 option under House Bill 2122, also voluntary, falls back on
7 the county and does not require that the municipality be
8 officially destitute under Act 47 criteria.
9 MR. GAZSI: That's correct. There is no
10 eligibility criteria within 47 or even within the bill
11 itself. It essentially says, "if it's to the advantage of
12 the parties."
13 MS. GOLDBECK: Thank you.
14 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: All right. Thank
15 you very much for your testimony. We appreciate it very
16 much.
17 Next on the agenda is the Department of
18 Community and Economic Development, deputy secretary of
19 Community Affairs, Secretary Rick Vilello.
20 SECRETARY VILELLO: Vilello.
21 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Vilello. And the
22 floor is yours.
23 SECRETARY VILELLO: Good morning, everybody.
24 If we were keeping the sports analogies
25 going, I would be the water boy because it's my job to keep 30
1 all of the players on the field. And I'm going to try to
2 stay to my written testimony. I'm a former mayor, so 10
3 minutes is awful tight for a former mayor. I could go on
4 for hours on the subject. I'm a local government nerd. So
5 I'll stay to my written testimony.
6 I am deputy secretary of Community Affairs
7 and Development. It is my honor to present testimony today.
8 My deputate consists of all of the community programs at
9 DCED of which the center of local government oversees the
10 Act 47 Distressed Community Program.
11 Our role is to support and provide assistance
12 to all 2560 Pennsylvania municipalities. Of those 2560
13 municipalities, 31 have been in the distressed program at
14 some point or another. We also monitor the conditions in
15 all municipalities, especially those approaching or just
16 leaving Act 47 distressed status.
17 One of the tools we use in this case is the
18 Early Intervention Program, EIP. Act 47 of 1987, the
19 Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, was amended for the
20 first time by Act 199 in 2014. The amendments helped, but
21 more could and should be done.
22 Despite our best efforts in the support of
23 Act 47, some places are on life support. They face the
24 burdens of being a full service community when industry and
25 population have left. And while pension and health care 31
1 costs have skyrocketed, populations and elected officials
2 are aging causing vacant positions that go unfilled or
3 elected officials serving term after term with no one
4 interested in following in their footsteps.
5 So where are we today? We've had some
6 successes. Since the passage of 199, Nanticoke, Clairton,
7 Plymouth Township, Altoona, and Pittsburgh have come out of
8 distressed status. We are hopeful that they will show
9 continued progress and vibrancy. We anticipate that the
10 city of Farrell, the city of New Castle, the city of
11 Reading, and the borough of Colwyn will exit the program in
12 the next several years.
13 But Act 199 is not perfect. It provided some
14 good and very useful tools. It codified the Early
15 Intervention Program. It provided additional revenue
16 options which go away when a municipality leaves distressed
17 status. It codified some of the specific duties of the
18 recovery coordinator, and most significantly, established a
19 time clock for Act 47.
20 For instance, the time line requirements
21 include an initial five-year period. In the fifth year,
22 municipalities are required to have an assessment of the
23 health of the municipality, at which time, the secretary of
24 DCED can rescind the distressed status, appoint a receiver,
25 move to a three-year final exit plan, or propose 32
1 disincorporation.
2 Disincorporation is only an option in
3 municipalities without a collective bargaining agreement,
4 meaning municipalities that do not have full-time police or
5 paid firefighters. We have not timed out on a community who
6 we felt wasn't ready to try to make it on their own. But we
7 are fast approaching a time when several municipalities will
8 time out. When a municipality times out, there are few good
9 solutions from that point forward.
10 House Bill 2122 provides a potential solution
11 for local leaders facing hard decisions and is a tool worth
12 trying. It is limited to counties of the second class and
13 second class A. It can provide additional options where
14 there are currently few available.
15 I'm a local government guy. I was mayor of
16 Lockhaven for four terms. I always am and always will be an
17 advocate for local government and local elected officials,
18 but we've gotten to the point in Pennsylvania where we have
19 to ask the question, "What is the best way to provide the
20 services our citizens want and deserve, and how do we do it
21 in the most efficient manner?"
22 Only 31 of the 2560 municipalities have ever
23 been distressed. And with House Bill 2122, limited to
24 second class and second class A counties, the potential
25 municipalities which would be able to consider this option 33
1 are very limited.
2 Allegheny County is the only second class
3 county in Pennsylvania. Bucks, Delaware, and Montgomery are
4 the second class A counties. Of the 31 municipalities that
5 have been in distressed status as defined by Act 47, nine of
6 those have been from Allegheny County. Statewide, 14
7 municipalities have come out of distressed status. Six of
8 them have been from Allegheny County. And I have a couple
9 of charts of the ones that have left in Allegheny County and
10 those that are still in Act 47. And then in Delaware
11 County, there's -- Millbourne went in and out, and Chester
12 and Colwyn are still in.
13 We are going to have to have some very hard
14 discussions in the coming years as municipalities time out
15 of Act 199. Between now and 2021, all of those that are
16 currently in will time out.
17 Maybe House Bill 2122 saves a couple of
18 municipalities from being part of the those hard
19 discussions. Receivership and disincorporation are bad
20 words. Nobody wants to use them, nobody wants to hear them.
21 I personally know many of the elected
22 officials in the communities where House Bill 2122 could be
23 an option. I know they've been working their guts out for a
24 very long time. House Bill 2122 could be a life preserver
25 for communities that have been treading water for a very 34
1 long time. Who knows? If it works, counties in the class
2 two and two A's -- what would be possible next?
3 House Bill 2122 is a tool for the elected
4 officials and for the citizens of distressed municipalities
5 to make a choice about their future.
6 Harrisburg is good at telling local officials
7 what they can't do. I'm here to ask you to support House
8 Bill 2122 and let's give them something they can do.
9 Thank you for the opportunity today.
10 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Thank you.
11 Are there any questions from any of the
12 members?
13 Yes, absolutely. My other executive director
14 would like to ask a question.
15 MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Just a clarification, though. This
17 legislation, we're very careful when, in drafting and
18 working with the commission. It only applies right now to
19 counties of the second class, Allegheny, although we were
20 always cognizant that it could be a model for other counties
21 perhaps down the road, if it's successful in its
22 implementation in Allegheny County.
23 SECRETARY VILELLO: I read it as two and
24 two A.
25 MR. CASTELLI: No. 35
1 Kris, could you speak to that?
2 MR. GAZSI: Yeah. The definition of county
3 on page 3 of the bill, lines 20 and 21, limits it to a
4 county of the second class, in which a municipal corporation
5 is entirely located.
6 MR. CASTELLI: So it would not apply to
7 Bucks, Montgomery, or Delaware Counties.
8 SECRETARY VILELLO: Okay.
9 MR. CASTELLI: But as I said, we were careful
10 so that this was a good product, that if successfully
11 implemented, might be attractive and be a resource for other
12 counties in the Commonwealth.
13 SECRETARY VILELLO: Not my first mistake
14 today.
15 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Oh, that's quite
16 all right. I think we get the gist of it, is the fact that
17 you would like to see it extended to others also, if at all
18 possible throughout, once we get moving with it possibly.
19 SECRETARY VILELLO: We're going to be here in
20 the next couple of years because when some of the
21 municipalities that time out -- we're going to have to make
22 some hard decisions. And this is a tool that might prevent
23 some of those hard discussions.
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Okay, very good.
25 Christine. 36
1 MS. GOLDBECK: So speaking of Harrisburg and
2 the condition and its potential to get out soon or maybe not
3 soon of Act 47, do you see something like this, which is
4 only Allegheny County right now, expanded to potentially
5 work for other counties, other cities, counties,
6 municipalities?
7 SECRETARY VILELLO: Allegheny County is
8 unique because of the services it provides and is prepared
9 to move on something like this immediately. If it were
10 expanded to other counties, there would have to be a
11 discussion in the role of other counties, as far as police
12 services, streets and parks and recreation, and other
13 counties currently aren't prepared to be able to provide the
14 services that Allegheny does.
15 But Harrisburg is unique in Act 47 terms
16 because they're the only city to have been put under a
17 receiver. They're doing very well. Their financial
18 projections are really, really good at this time. So I
19 would see Harrisburg coming out from Act 47 and receivership
20 healthy enough to stand on its own.
21 But other places around the state will not
22 be. I wouldn't want to name them today. But when that
23 happens, you know, if a receiver is named -- and like the
24 Local Government Commission presented -- I don't know that
25 the tools in 199 are the best long-term tools. But that's a 37
1 whole other discussion, too.
2 MS. GOLDBECK: It is. Thank you.
3 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Seeing no other
4 questions, thank you very much for your testimony.
5 SECRETARY VILELLO: Yeah.
6 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: We appreciate that
7 very much.
8 Our next testifier, the State Municipal
9 Association, Amy Sturges and Melissa Morgan. Amy is the
10 director of government affairs for the Pennsylvania
11 Municipal League, and Melissa is legislative and policy
12 analyst for the Pennsylvania State Association of Township
13 Supervisors.
14 Welcome. And the floor is yours.
15 MS. STURGES: Good morning. My name is Amy
16 Sturges. I'm the director of governmental affairs for the
17 State Association of Township Commissioners and the
18 Pennsylvania Municipal League. I'm testifying on behalf of
19 both associations today. They represent over 160 full
20 service communities throughout the Commonwealth and my
21 testimony today is more on a statewide basis than just
22 limited to Allegheny County.
23 Although voluntary and currently limited to
24 Allegheny County, both associations oppose this legislation.
25 The intent behind the proposal is commendable, but it is not 38
1 the direction the Commonwealth should be taking.
2 Municipalities in Pennsylvania genuinely need
3 new tools to keep or regain their economic vitality and the
4 ability to provide the services their residents expect. But
5 disincorporation is not one of those tools.
6 Municipal disincorporation is a very radical
7 and uncharted response to the municipal fiscal stress we are
8 witnessing in Pennsylvania, as there are no unincorporated
9 areas in the Commonwealth and our county governments, aside
10 from Philadelphia, are not providing the array of typical
11 municipal services.
12 Rather than dismantling our local government
13 structure, the Commonwealth should invest in its local
14 governments with a comprehensive approach and a policy
15 directive of preventing municipal fiscal distress. And I'm
16 not just referring to distressed that has gotten to the
17 point of Act 47. There is plenty of distress ahead of going
18 into Act 47.
19 This can be achieved by updating decades-old
20 laws, providing new tools to match the needs of today's
21 municipalities, and by adequately financing state programs
22 that can support and assist municipalities with shared
23 services, financial recovery, and merger and consolidation.
24 This is a position that we have consistently
25 taken in recent years when asked about Act 47 and fiscal 39
1 municipal distress in general. Frankly, disincorporation is
2 a very easy way out for our Commonwealth and we should not
3 be willing to utilize this approach until a meaningful
4 effort at preventing municipal distress has been made.
5 Many of the local government laws that we
6 must work under, such as -- many of the local government
7 functions, such as taxation, personnel management, and
8 day-to-day operations need to be updated. They are archaic
9 and hamstring effective governance in the 21st century.
10 Moreover, laws currently in existence authorizing
11 intergovernmental cooperation and merger and consolidation
12 are not being used to their full potential because of legal
13 and financial obstacles. These barriers need to be removed
14 whenever possible and replaced with flexibility and
15 incentives.
16 In terms of revenue, local government
17 operation -- laws governing local government operations are
18 30, 40, 50 years old and a lot has changed in those years.
19 The Commonwealth is doing a disservice to municipalities,
20 its residents, and businesses by not updating these laws.
21 For example, local tax law is still operating under the
22 perspective that people live and work and shop and dine all
23 in one municipality. That was a model in 1965, but it's not
24 the case today. Today we live regionally and local taxation
25 should have a regional element that provides some form of 40
1 revenue shared across a broader area.
2 Additionally, many of the communities in
3 distress have a high percentage of tax exempt properties.
4 Tax exempt status is granted by the state, but the impact is
5 felt locally by residents and businesses who bear the burden
6 of making up the necessary revenue to provide services to
7 all properties. These issues are just two of the many
8 reasons the tax rates in built-up communities are higher and
9 making them less attractive and unable to compete with
10 neighboring municipalities that still have a growing tax
11 base.
12 In terms of expenses, which is the other side
13 of the simple math equation we have here, is that municipal
14 expenses are mandated and oftentimes out of control. And
15 when the local government revenue structure falls short and
16 expenses outpace revenue, problems ensue, just as with any
17 other budget. We have to add to the state and federal
18 mandates that also create areas where municipalities simply
19 cannot afford to uphold what is being mandated on them.
20 One of the largest expenses of full service
21 communities are public safety services and personnel. This
22 can easily be at least half of a municipal budget. Some of
23 the other mandates, legal advertising, prevailing wage,
24 recycling, stormwater management all must be accounted for,
25 as well. When revenues fall short and expenses are 41
1 mandated, we quickly see quality of life services go by the
2 wayside, such as routine maintenance of roads and bridges,
3 code enforcement, blight remediation, economic development,
4 parks and recreation. They simply cannot be afforded when
5 faced with revenue shortfalls and mandated expenses.
6 In addition to fixing the barriers to
7 sufficient revenue and manageable expenses, a comprehensive
8 policy approach must include a fresh look at
9 intergovernmental cooperation, merger, and consolidation.
10 These tools need to be more attractive and easier to pursue
11 and implement. Legal, financial, and technical issues have
12 hindered creative problem-solving when political
13 subdivisions have tried to think beyond their borders.
14 We as a Commonwealth need to figure out how
15 to support, encourage, and build on successful efforts. And
16 these certainly include partnering with county government.
17 I'd like to address a few concerns that we
18 see specifically with House Bill 2122 in terms of
19 implementation of disincorporation.
20 The first is that there are no guidelines,
21 that's been established through prior testifiers. There are
22 no guidelines for making the decision to pursue
23 disincorporation. This is a very subjective idea, then,
24 that the county can better serve the residents. Everyone is
25 going to have a different idea of what that means. And the 42
1 absence of any objective baseline triggers will most likely
2 hinder the process and the progress of going forward with
3 this concept.
4 Also, the presumption that the county can
5 better serve residents assumes a willingness on the part of
6 the county to take on services it traditionally does not
7 perform and also the ability to provide those
8 services efficiently and cost effectively.
9 Is it still the case if only one municipality
10 decides to disincorporate? Is the county really interested
11 in taking over services for one municipality? Or if five
12 municipalities disincorporate over time, will there be five
13 distinct districts with five distinct service provisions by
14 the county? This likely outcome is the opposite of what I
15 think this legislation is looking to achieve.
16 Thirdly, the legislation indicates that each
17 disincorporated district will still pay for the services
18 under the current methods of local taxation and revenue
19 generation. Additionally, the districts' residents are
20 responsible for the existing debt and the cost of
21 transitioning to county control.
22 If the current methods of taxation and
23 revenue generation are not adequate now, how can we expect
24 them to be adequate when disincorporation occurs? Residents
25 of the district will most likely find that they are paying 43
1 more for less in the end. And the county may find it cannot
2 provide the services appropriately under the current
3 statutory restrictions that local governments have now.
4 Fourthly, we question the legality of the
5 terms of the elected officials just coming to an end
6 midterm, should the referendum be accepted by the voters?
7 We also question the ability to terminate existing contracts
8 and to name new parties to existing contracts. We think
9 this is going to be very expensive from a legal standpoint
10 and possibly impossible in terms of personnel contracts.
11 And one more point we'd like to make is that
12 living in a disincorporated district, the voices of the
13 citizens will be diluted. They will be governed by the
14 county council, and if they're not happy with how things are
15 being handled through disincorporation, their opportunity to
16 change their governing body is diluted because the citizens
17 of the entire county are voting for county council.
18 Additionally, the District Advisory Board is
19 made up of three electors appointed by the county executive
20 and all serving at the will of the county executive.
21 To conclude, our Commonwealth's laws and
22 policies have created the diverse and decentralized local
23 government structure that we have today. Ultimately, the
24 health of our local governments is an indication of the
25 health of our Commonwealth. Before we go down the path of 44
1 disincorporation and change the face of local government as
2 we know it, we must look carefully at the laws and policies
3 governing municipalities.
4 What worked 50 years ago should simply not be
5 expected to work today. We owe it to the citizens of the
6 Commonwealth to pursue new government policies first. This
7 is not easy, as it has not been done already, and it could
8 be unpopular at times, but disincorporation is not the
9 answer. We believe the Commonwealth's citizens deserve
10 more.
11 And I'm happy to answer any questions you
12 have.
13 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I think we'll just
14 move right over to...
15 MS. MORGAN: Good morning.
16 My name is Melissa Morgan and I am the
17 legislative and policy analyst for the Pennsylvania State
18 Association of Township Supervisors.
19 Chairman Keller and members of the committee,
20 thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on
21 behalf of the 1,454 townships in Pennsylvania represented by
22 the association.
23 Our members range in size from a couple of
24 hundred residents to over 60,000 people and cover 95 percent
25 of Pennsylvania's land mass. While House Bill 2122 only 45
1 affects townships located in Allegheny County, our
2 membership has taken a strong position to oppose the concept
3 of disillusion or disincorporation. Most recently the
4 membership reaffirmed its opposition to any legislation that
5 would dissolve municipalities into unincorporated territory
6 governed by the county at our annual conference in April.
7 As such, we must oppose House Bill 2122.
8 County government should not be given
9 additional powers to administer unincorporated territory.
10 Instead, the legislature should consider relieving unfunded
11 mandates for municipalities such as those requiring benefits
12 to uniform employees to help alleviate financial challenges.
13 We believe that townships are key to the delivery of local
14 services and that requiring residents to rely on a more
15 distant layer of government would underserve local
16 democracy. In this proposal, the county is given primacy
17 over an unincorporated district despite the fact that the
18 majority of county council members are elected from other
19 districts within the county.
20 We understand that a task force created the
21 concepts behind this legislation; however, it is interesting
22 to note that there were no municipal officials on the task
23 force. Clearly, municipal input is needed for this concept.
24 We must point out that this is not the first
25 time we have seen many of the concepts in this proposal. 46
1 Similar language that contains processes driven by the state
2 have been proposed in the past. In fact, as we've heard of
3 this morning, very similar language was incorporated into
4 Act 47, the Municipalities Financial Recovery Act, as an
5 option of last resort for the financially distressed
6 municipalities that exceed the time frame for participation
7 in the Act 47 program. I must point out PSATS opposes
8 language which has yet to be utilized.
9 Local governments currently have the ability
10 to enter into shared service agreements through the
11 Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. This is very broad
12 authority that today allows any municipality to enter into
13 an agreement with another local government to provide a
14 service that the other local government is authorized and
15 willing to provide. PSATS is a strong supporter of this
16 act, which allows local governments to exercise their
17 creativity and flexibility to provide services desired by
18 their citizens at the best cost attainable. As such, we
19 believe that municipalities within Allegheny County
20 currently have the ability to contract with the county or
21 another local government for a particular municipal service.
22 As such, we believe this legislation is unnecessary.
23 I do have a couple of comments specific to
24 the legislation. I won't read through all of them, but I
25 did want to point out to you what we've heard about this 47
1 morning.
2 The first is, why limit the municipal
3 corporations that are eligible to become an unincorporated
4 district administered by a county to those with a population
5 of 10,000 or less? This makes it seem that either larger
6 municipalities are unsuited to being administered by the
7 county or that only those communities less than 10,000 are
8 in need of being administered by the county. Which is it?
9 And is there a list of possible candidates
10 within Allegheny County that the sponsors had in mind? We
11 have seen the list of 30-plus communities from the
12 Tribune-Review write in their requests and there are
13 communities in excess of 10,000 on the list, including Penn
14 Hills, the second largest municipality in Allegheny County.
15 I do have copies of that article, as well, if
16 anyone would like it.
17 The other thing I would like to point out,
18 which answers a question from this morning, is this
19 legislation allows the municipality and the county to
20 rescind collective bargaining agreements applicable to
21 municipal employees as part of the development of the
22 essential services plan. Doesn't this contradict existing
23 state law covering these agreements without changing it?
24 Yes, these agreements can be very complex,
25 expensive, and can create an enormous challenge to local 48
1 governments that are attempting to offer shared services,
2 particularly regional police departments. Wouldn't it be
3 beneficial to allow any municipality to rescind collective
4 bargaining agreements that are burdensome to their
5 community?
6 We contend that changes are needed to our
7 laws that mandate benefits for our public safety employees
8 to make these services sustainable for our communities now
9 and in the future. And on the side, rescinding collective
10 bargaining agreements as a tool would enable all communities
11 to improve their fiscal health.
12 One of the most disturbing aspects of the
13 bill is a District Advisory Committee provision. Like most
14 of this proposal, it is not a new concept. In this
15 proposal, the District Advisory Committee would consist of
16 three electors of the unincorporated district who would be
17 appointed by the county executive subject to approval by a
18 majority of the seated members of county council. However,
19 these committee members would serve at the pleasure of the
20 county executive, which would appear that the county
21 executive could remove any member at any time.
22 Keep in mind, the District Advisory Committee
23 is the only link between residents of the unincorporated
24 district and council. The advisory committee would be
25 required to meet at least quarterly and hold public 49
1 meetings. Neither council nor the county executive would be
2 required to attend any of these meetings, but would receive
3 a report. Essentially, the District Advisory Committee
4 would function as a buffer between those deemed worthy of
5 making all decisions regarding the unincorporated district
6 and those who actually live there. Is this truly what
7 representative democracy was intended to look like?
8 Once disincorporated, the county would hold
9 title to all of the former municipality's assets, to be held
10 in a trust for the residents and property owners of the
11 unincorporated district. All powers of the administration
12 of the district would be vested in the county. However, the
13 district will continue to be responsible for any debt and
14 its citizens would be required to pay taxes and fees, excuse
15 me, for municipal services and debt payments. While a
16 District Advisory Committee would be formed, they would not
17 possess any real powers. It appears that the citizens would
18 have no control over services or taxes. Essentially, the
19 former municipality would become a service district
20 administered by county council.
21 Finally, House Bill 2122 would not only give
22 all of the former municipality's authority to the county, it
23 would also give the county any power not denied by the
24 legislation, the county's home rule charter or the
25 Constitution of Pennsylvania. This appears to be a sweeping 50
1 expansion of county powers that we must oppose.
2 In closing, we must ask what citizens are
3 asking to live in unincorporated territory overseen by a
4 district, a distant board, with little knowledge of the
5 challenges and benefits of the community? What
6 municipalities in Allegheny County are asking for the option
7 to give up and let the county take over?
8 We are not hearing any citizens or
9 municipalities asking for this option. Instead, our members
10 would like relief from unfunded mandates so they can work to
11 provide the best communities for their residents at
12 sustainable costs. Even the Allegheny League of
13 Municipalities is not supportive of this legislation.
14 I will now take any questions that you may
15 have.
16 Thank you.
17 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Members, any
18 questions from any of the members?
19 Yes, please.
20 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you,
21 Mr. Chair.
22 And this is a question for both the
23 testifiers now and before. Is that all right?
24 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Sure.
25 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you. 51
1 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: The ones before
2 might not be here now.
3 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: That's okay, but I
4 think some --
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Sure.
6 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: -- are, so that's
7 great.
8 I'm wondering, how does Allegheny County feel
9 about having the possibility -- this is probably a question
10 for you -- for assuming responsibility of taking over the
11 services of a municipality, or several?
12 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, the county itself is
13 economically as a whole doing extremely well right now. But
14 of those 130 municipalities, some are not. And in those
15 areas in which they have distressed status -- and some of
16 them, quite frankly, have not gone into Act 47, they just
17 quit providing the services. They haven't gone into the
18 debt problem, but they haven't provided the services that
19 their citizens have wanted. And what they've basically been
20 doing is voting with their feet. They've been leaving.
21 Those municipalities have been shrinking in population.
22 And the county -- and that will be ultimately
23 the decision of the county executive, future county
24 executive and future county councils, to be able to look and
25 make sure that they want to do this, too, because the option 52
1 does go both ways. But what it is, it's a tool in the
2 toolbox.
3 And I'd like to just correct one item. We
4 actually, on that panel, there were three members of
5 municipal government that were part of that. So I just
6 wanted to correct former testimony. There was a --
7 Cranberry Township was part of that proposal, Shader
8 Township, and the city of Altoona were also part of, local
9 government officials were part of that collective committee.
10 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: Thank you very
11 much.
12 And as a former mayor, two-term mayor of West
13 Chester, and my experience with the fiefdoms across
14 Pennsylvania, including our own, I'm wondering -- I mean, I
15 love the idea of additional tools for municipalities. I
16 also know all about the unfunded mandates and the
17 comprehensive reforms that we need to really help support in
18 our local municipalities.
19 So I'm wondering, practically speaking, are
20 there actually municipalities that would jump at this chance
21 or opportunity?
22 MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know the answer to
23 that. There may be, but it will be ultimately their choice.
24 It's a voluntary program. It is not a forced -- it's not a
25 look to take over. It's just giving people an option. And 53
1 to me, that's what democracy is about, giving people the
2 choice. Right now, they don't have that choice.
3 REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTA: And given the
4 exceptional work that was done here -- kudos and thank you
5 to the University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics for
6 doing this study and preparing this report. And I'm all
7 about local control, as well, with as much help as we can
8 get from the legislature to enable us to take the actions
9 that we need.
10 So following on this being one possible tool
11 that might work for a municipality or might not, is there a
12 plan or an opportunity for the University of Pittsburgh
13 Institute of Politics to take a look at some of the
14 comprehensive reform that, I know you're also aware of,
15 would help municipalities in general, and specifically the
16 municipalities in distress that you're trying to address
17 with those particular tool?
18 MR. FITZGERALD: There could be other tools,
19 and I could certainly -- I don't speak for the institute,
20 but I could certainly talk to Director Nordenberg and his
21 team and see if that is something that they would certainly
22 look at.
23 As a local elected official, yes, we would
24 love to have as many tools as we can, on all sides, revenue,
25 expenditures, operations, et cetera. So that's something I 54
1 think we probably would come to all of you and ask for, and
2 I think I would probably speak for a lot of my county
3 colleagues, as well as municipal colleagues, like yourself,
4 mayor, former mayor, that would want to do that.
5 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: Any other
6 questions from any other members?
7 (No response.)
8 MAJORITY CHAIRMAN KELLER: I just want to say
9 thank you to each and every one who testified here today.
10 It has brought some light to the issues.
11 A couple of housecleaning things -- the
12 Republican members, if you would, go to my office next. We
13 do have a voting meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m., room 205. I
14 think it's 205 Ryan Office Building.
15 So other than that, we thank you all. And
16 this hearing is closed. Thank you.
17 (The hearing concluded at 11:10 a.m.)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25